Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Today, there are quite a few very vocal neo-Confederates who think gun rights, states rights, the protection of white American culture and elimination of "excessive" taxation on the rich are the nation's preeminent concerns. Their antebellum mindset makes it impossible for them to accept scientific reality -- climate change, evolution, the true age of the planet -- and political reality -- America is becoming a more diverse, tolerant nation that does not share their fear-driven philosophy.

One of our two great political parties has been captured by the neo-Confederates and, because so many of them have been elected to Congress, the political system is gridlocked. Big problems are either ignored -- climate change, deterioration of infrastructure, the toxic greed in the financial system -- or kicked down the road to be fixed another day.

The gerrymandering of state congressional districts, an apparent win for the GOP, is what will prove to be their ultimate undoing. It ensures a large part of its House delegation will be significantly and very visibly far to the right of the American people in general, and prevent any "tacking to the center" from Presidential or Senatorial candidates. To paraphrase Joe Torre, when you play for one House, that's the most you are going to get.

The gerrymandering of state congressional districts, an apparent win for the GOP, is what will prove to be their ultimate undoing. It ensures a large part of its House delegation will be significantly and very visibly far to the right of the American people in general, and prevent any "tacking to the center" from Presidential or Senatorial candidates.

If the folks in Ruby Ridge don't have guns, the government just quietly strongarms a witness into testifying, and there's no noise to bring it to public attention.

And far fewer people die, if any at all. At least with Kehoskie's talk about slave uprisings there was a moral dimension to his argument, but it's not like the Branch Davidian captives were using their guns against their true slavemasters.

Imagine an international epidemic, like a superflu. A government might want to quarantine infected people until they die, to prevent the spread of the disease. If there are no citizens with guns, this happens pretty easily; there's no way to effectively resist.

Of course if they "successfully resist," then more people die. But with their principles intact, I'm sure.

To believe that, one must believe it's a total coincidence that the populations of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea have been disarmed.

So my favorite part of this, is it is from the same guy that totally rejects using other countries for control arguments or health care arguments or any other kind of argument - only the Second Amendment is usefully compared across nations I guess. And only cherry picked nations.

PED and Gun Control. Good day to be unable to post much as both topics are more than a little boring IMO.

Imagine an international epidemic, like a superflu. A government might want to quarantine infected people until they die, to prevent the spread of the disease. If there are no citizens with guns, this happens pretty easily; there's no way to effectively resist.

Of course if they "successfully resist," then more people die. But with their principles intact, I'm sure.

Wait. Someone is arguing that people who are near-patient zero for a massive pandemic shouldn't be quarantined, because, Freedom Rock, man?

Imagine an international epidemic, like a superflu. A government might want to quarantine infected people until they die, to prevent the spread of the disease. If there are no citizens with guns, this happens pretty easily; there's no way to effectively resist.

To take this scenario in a different direction...

I was thinking today about post-apocalyptic movies and I thought there might be a fun one to be made in terms of looking at the long-term social impact of a superflu. I'm more or less thinking of a modern version of post-Black Death Europe, with all the social, cultural, economic and political outcomes it created both "good" and "bad" (if those words make any sense in this context). So it wouldn't necessarily be a dark movie, just an examination of a different cultural world.

Perhaps it's a better project for a novel. (And knowing the wide range of novels out there, one that I'm sure has already been written).

what did they do with the tanks they had (that could perhaps have fought back)? They sent them away.

Which was tactically/strategically the right move:

If they kept the tanks they couldn't win the battle (the battle that day) if it n fact turned into a pitched fight-

If they didn't keep tanks the couldn't win in the army decided to clear the protesters out and take the white house, but an attack on unarmed civilians would have looked bad, deligitimised the coup plotters

If they didn't keep the tanks the troops being commanded by the coup plotters may have refused to shoot (given that the field officers refused to even give such orders, it's likely that the enlisted men would have refused any way if such orders were given)- there was also precedent for this in Russian/Soviet history, troops recalled from the front in 1917 to put down the revolution refused to advance on unarmed crowds (of course according to the Battleship Potemkin the czarist troops had no problem massacring unarmed civilians while putting down the 1905 rebellion - but that movie was propaganda, there was no massacre on the Odessa steps, and while troops did fore on civilians it was usually in response to being attacked in the frost place)

Yeltsin correctly saw that RUSSIAN TROOPS were not going to fire on Russian Civilians in Moscow (Stalin would not have made that mistake, he would have shipped in units of a different ethnicity if he needed to put down a rebellion in Moscow)

Going back to foreign labor for a moment. About a month ago I bought a cheap toaster from Target for like 7 bucks. First toaster I've owned in something like 5 years. Anyway, decided to use it today for the first time and I broke the handle right off trying to lower the handle to its on position. First time a cheap product has ever behaved like a cheap product for me.

i mean, our current infrastructure is based upon 19th and 20th century ideas of urban planning, so if we made the decision to start over by designing and building new cities that take advantage of new technologies, instead of just retrofitting our old ones, we would be much better off.

So, what are you proposing?

One drawback to this is that there have been no new, cost-effective, game-changing technologies. There are wonderful developments, like Ken Yeang's Bioclimatic skyscrapers, but those aren't the result of new techologies, but instead are an intelligent combining of existing technologies, whose incremental improvements have made them worth using.

New cities are a nice idea, but Brasilia taught us they don't really work. Would you want to go live in New New York city, 100 miles north of the real thing? What would it have that the original doesn't?

I guess the short question is, if you were going to sketch out your new city in a couple of paragraphs, what tech would it employ that an existing city, with all its amenities, could not incorporate?

(Let's say, for instance, that all the streets have tech that would take your car anywhere in the city at your verbal command. First, where would you keep all the cars needed, second, where would you park when you got where you were going, and third, how would that be an improvement over NYCs very good transportation system?

Keep in mind that in exchange for this kind of improvement, if it is one, you lose the Met, and everything else along with it. And that's forgetting the multi-trillion dollar investment in a new city simply won't happen.

(The things I can see happening are things like, in new buildings in old cities, require that their skins are electric generating ceramic solar tiles; that they go some lengths towards manufacturing their own water; that they use composting toilets, and so on. All things that not only reduce the load on infrastructure, but may actually become energy positive additions.)

That's what these guys do not see and do not look at; they're just flat scared of guns. And the solution to that is exactly what the Founding Fathers said and that is you start teaching kids to use guns when they're very young because gun accidents are caused by non-familiarity with guns; once you're familiar with them, you don't have accidents with them.

I have searched and in the founding era I think I've only ever found two gun accidents and everybody was hauling guns back then; you took your guns to church, you were required by state law in some states to take your guns to church. We didn't have accidents because everyone was familiar with how to use them. It's not being familiar that makes is dangerous.

Reminds me of some old documentary that the Heritage Foundation or some such conservative think tank put out there back in the 80's. The documentary spent 10 minutes or so quoting founding fathers and other leaders of the time talking about how much of a paradise the new country was and how crime was non-existent.

• U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, far more than real hourly wages for both private-sector and state/local government workers, which grew 12% in the same period. Real hourly compensation grew a bit more (20.5% for state/local workers and 17.9% for private-sector workers) but still lagged far behind productivity growth.

• Wage stagnation has hit high school–educated workers harder than college graduates, although both groups have suffered—and a bit more so in the public sector. For example, from 1989 to 2010, real wages for high school-educated workers in the private sector grew by just 4.8%, compared with 2.6% in state government. During the same period, real wages for college graduates in the private sector grew 19.4%, compared with 9.5% in state government.

edit: from the CBO: “For workers at all education levels, the cost of total compensation averaged about $52 per hour worked for federal employees, compared with about $45 per hour worked for employees in the private sector with certain similar observable characteristics,” CBO analysts said in their report."

I'm having a tough time seeing that difference being any kind of legitimate problem.

Colin Powell sure wasn't mincing any words this morning. I realize he doesn't have any cred with the conservatives here, but I think he is still a fairly respected voice of centrism with many Americans.

He does, which is incredible. You'd think committing fraud at the UN, in order to sell a war of choice in full view of the world, would have caused him to slink away in permanent disgrace.

Given that you want, and need, huge amounts of above-ground transportation in a city, the gain is minor. I'd guess L.A. is one of the cities that would benefit substantially by a significant underground system, while NYC has probably put as much underground as you'd want to. I'm not seeing this as even close to enough reason to build entirely new cities. Anything else?

The union busters have done a quite effective job of turning the great masses onto subsets of themselves -- "You're poor because those greedy teachers/city workers/whomever are screwing you out of your tax dollars!" -- but the reality is that it's just much more a matter capital getting a lot better at winning the battle against labor.

Extraordinary, isn't it? They've rarely been this successful with anything else. They weren't able to get Americans to privatize (lose) their social security, or really even make headway at all towards privatization, but Unions = Satan to many, even those who would obviously benefit from them.

Well, I think it's the reflexive rejection anything that hints at 'collectivism'....

True, but OTOH, what is a corporation but another kind of
collective?

Unless you join my bandwagon, and endorse protectionism, unions have exactly zero ability to raise American wages in the private sector. All they can do is force more jobs overseas to keep up the pay/benefits of a dwindling US work-force.

Not true --

Yes. Not remotely true.

It imagines that American workers in the private sector have maximized wages to the point that there is nothing more at all significant to be gained through collective bargaining. In a time of whopping corporate profits, that's erroneous on its face. Corporations are obviously able to increase wages, and to do so significantly. That they don't is a combination of lack of union pressure and of government intervention on behalf of business to actively limit or end collective bargaining rights. There is substantial room to increase wages.

There is no simple answer to the question of the relationship between guns and violence since there are lots of factors. It is interesting that the publication of addresses of gun permits in upstate NY has led to what police think is an increase in crime...against households that have guns by people looking to steal them. link

but Unions = Satan to many, even those who would obviously benefit from them.

A lot of that has to do with the unions themselves. As a manager in a corporation that employs unions and having worked for 4 different businesses in that corporation I've seen a lot of stupidity from the union organization staff. I know of a lot of union members who are pissed off at their union even though it is the union that is responsible for their employment, wages, and benefits. I've also seen other unions that I don't directly work with but are my customers waste tremendous amounts of their union's money on frivolous stuff and a lot of it probably could be classified under corruption.

Part of the problem is that a lot of union members are poorly educated and when that is the situation the wolves are going to take over.

I have searched and in the founding era I think I've only ever found two gun accidents and everybody was hauling guns back then

It's harder to have an "accident" with an effing flintlock than it is with a modern gun- first off, it's much harder to load you have to put in powder, ram the ball down the barrel, put in wadding to keep the powder/ball down the barrel, load powder into the priming pan*, #### the hammer... you don't have a situation like with a modern gun where you pull out the clip and don't realize that there's a round in the chamber... it's much less likely that someone is just going to take a loaded and primed flintlock and stick it in a drawer/hang it on the wall ready to fire than it is for someone to inadvertently do the same with a loaded handgun

nonetheless, despite what the esteemed "historian" claims, people did have accidents with firearms back in the day

*The introduction of percussion caps in the mid 19th made the accidental discharge of a firearm more likely- you really didn't need safeties on guns until then

It is interesting that the publication of addresses of gun permits in upstate NY has led to what police think is an increase in crime...against households that have guns by people looking to steal them. link

@1336: Sure. Nobody's perfect. I doubt unions are any better or any worse that the businesses they operate within. or the government generally, or the private sector generally, or [pick your area of life].

Not so sure. After all, it's supposed to be entirely public information, and it was a fascinating experiment. Why 'shockingly irresponsible'?

It's harder to have an "accident" with an effing flintlock than it is with a modern gun- first off,...

And, weren't the damned things about four and a half feet long? It's a lot easier to accidentally aim a pistol, or even a shotgun or short rifle at someone.

To believe that, one must believe it's a total coincidence that the populations of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea have been disarmed.

So my favorite part of this, is it is from the same guy that totally rejects using other countries for control arguments or health care arguments or any other kind of argument - only the Second Amendment is usefully compared across nations I guess. And only cherry picked nations.

Who couldn't possibly be more different in practically every regard from the US. It was intellectual dishonesty of an enduring beauty.

@1336: Sure. Nobody's perfect. I doubt unions are any better or any worse that the businesses they operate within. or the government generally, or the private sector generally, or [pick your area of life].

Yes but the difference is that unions have to convince people to join them and to give them money. A crappy business gives people money to work for them. A big difference and why business has the advantage.

And, weren't the damned things about four and a half feet long? It's a lot easier to accidentally aim a pistol, or even a shotgun or short rifle at someone.

If I had to guess which weapon was the most deadly to one's one self back then I would have to guess it would be the blade. Poor sanitary habits and no knowledge of germs/bacteria/viruses means a lot of little nicks and cuts turned into life threatening injuries.

I was thinking today about post-apocalyptic movies and I thought there might be a fun one to be made in terms of looking at the long-term social impact of a superflu. I'm more or less thinking of a modern version of post-Black Death Europe, with all the social, cultural, economic and political outcomes it created both "good" and "bad" (if those words make any sense in this context). So it wouldn't necessarily be a dark movie, just an examination of a different cultural world.

Wow--so something like half the world's population dies,... or are you confining it to a certain area (which would bring about conflicts an Earthwide disaster wouldn't).

I'm also thinking of the scenario where a bomb of sufficient size to kill 20,000 people and devastate a large section of a city. Probably nuclear. Then, the effects on the country. As horrifying as the blast will be, and as devastating the loss of life, another result will be a permanent change in the US. Closed borders, armed guards everywhere, hundreds of billions more spent on internal security, hundreds of billions on top of that spent on armed raids towards the extinction of whatever group was responsible; an end to privacy and an end to civil liberties... all of this and more with almost complete approval from the populace. It'll make the worst of the Patriot Act look utterly benign.

Sort of speaking of which, I'm surprised a Prez as well acquainted with the Constitution as Obama hasn't set up a trial in absentia system for terrorists he wants to assassinate.

@1340: good point. Some elementary education is probably the way to renew and revive the union movement. As simple as educational materials to Dem members of the House. Solidify what support there is. Educate the populace through a concerted campaign with very simple, demonstrable assertions. Make unions seem as American as... cheating on your taxes.

What's the murder rate, and the crime rate in general, in the South before and after Jim Crow?

hmmm...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kycrime.htm

1965 : 5.3 murder per 100k

1970 : 11.1 murder per 100k

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm

1965 : 5.9 murder per 100k
1974 : 13.4 murder per 100k

Breakdown according to race--before and after Civil Rights? In the South and in other places. I bet you'll see a significant difference. It would fly in the face of cause and effect not to.

And I'm not just referring to the Jim Crow South and afterwards. I bet there was an effect throughout the country. It's the price of freedom. Some people use their new-found freedom to commit crime. It's a lesson in negative consequences, and in no longer having them. I remember around 1991 listening to a former Soviet police officer give a speech/lecture/talk. He said that right after the evil empire came apart at the seams, crime in his city suddenly skyrocketed. People in his town (I forget where he was from) used to not lock the doors of their homes and leave the keys of their car in the ignition.

... it seems that many Republicans are willing to risk default for the sake of making their point. But if somehow John Boehner folds on default and helps the president and the Senate prevent it, he may at least have to throw his rabids the bone of a government shutdown. “We might need to do that,” a GOP aide said, “for member-management purposes—so they have an endgame and can show constituents they’re fighting.”

We’ve all read plenty of cuckoo quotes from these people, but please, I implore you to read that one again. It deserves to occupy a place of honor in your memory banks. They’ll deny people Social Security and veterans’ checks for member-management purposes?

...

You know how when you hear the long screech of a car braking for several seconds you’re a bit disappointed if you don’t hear the crash right after it? Well, that’s where House Republicans are now, in psychological terms. The brakes are screeching in their ears. They have been since 2011. The brakes have been screeching so long that they’re itching for the wreck to happen, just to make their point, just to see what goes down, just to say to Barack Obama and The New York Times and mainstream economists and the reality-based community across America that, no, they don’t care. They want to hear the glass shatter and the metal twist.

They’ve been wanting to force a catastrophe, really, since the day Obama was first sworn in. They can’t abide the fact that he is president, they can’t believe he beat them a second time, and they live in a world that the other two thirds of the country doesn’t live in. And yet they have the power to drag us all down to their level. One hopes not for long.

He said that right after the evil empire came apart at the seams, crime in his city suddenly skyrocketed. People in his town (I forget where he was from) used to not lock the doors of their homes and leave the keys of their car in the ignition.

Sounds like Colombia after Pablo Escobar was killed - turned out, he was the guy enforcing civility.

Yes, there's a ready answer to the fact that many repressive regimes have less crime--what they are doing to create that culture that has a low official crime rate doesn't show up as crime. And the guy who gave that talk I went to soon recognized that, he said. He was pining for the old days. He was making a point about human behavior, and about what is crime and what isn't.

Same with racial apartheid in America. But there is an upside for some a downside for some in any kind of social and governmental arrangement. You can't have a serious discussion about political philosophy unless you acknowledge and appreciate that. It's all right to say that before breaking free in the 1960s blacks didn't commit as much crime, but that is the result of a repressive order, and the very nature of that repressiveness is a crime that doesn't show in stats. Remember, what's a crime and what's not is essentially an artificial, and sometimes arbitrary, distinction. But, also remember, some people had reason to be comfortable with that arrangement. The founts of nostalgia can surprisingly take odd forms.

I actually did read the linked article, but I'll need more than an editorial at "Truth-Out.org" -- preferably one without a biased and hysterical closing paragraph that calls the whole thing into question.

I'm a hard lefty but I don't find that article all that persuasive. It's one facet. I am persuaded that many different impulses went into the amendments; they were all compromises, often composed or revised in heat. So I don't it is "case closed" proof of an individual right, of course. Nor do I think the example of the Virginia debates proves their ultimate intention. There were a bunch of intentions. Such is lawmaking.

On the new Jim Crow, I understand the impulse but I don't think it's useful. Jim Crow signified not general prejudice or divergent outcomes but a particular regime. If we make it into a synonym for vague racism or white supremacy, we lose the ability to say what was specific about the Jim Crow system. I think we live in a system where there are hugely divergent outcomes for racial groups and a fair amount of racial prejudice, as well as a great deal of legacy costs as long-past policies continue to have consequences. But I don't think we live in Jim Crow.

I actually did read the linked article, but I'll need more than an editorial at "Truth-Out.org" -- preferably one without a biased and hysterical closing paragraph that calls the whole thing into question.

I feel the need to explain to you that just because someone posts an article that talks about things that were discussed here does not mean that they agree with it. Though I'm sure you were already aware of slave patrols.

Fresh off our discussion of public-sector unions, here's a debacle that's costing Chicago taxpayers $22.5 million, but, judging from the description in the closing paragraph, all of the guilty parties are apparently still employed by the city of Chicago:

Chicago taxpayers will spend $22.5 million to compensate a mentally-ill California woman who was arrested and held overnight, then released in a high-crime neighborhood, where she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted before falling from a seventh-floor window of a CHA high-rise.

...

A former UCLA student, Eilman was arrested in May 2006 after allegedly creating a disturbance at Midway Airport. At the time, she was suffering from a bi-polar breakdown.

She was taken to the Wentworth District police station, 5101 S. Wentworth, where she was held overnight and continued to behave erratically.

The following day, despite frantic calls from her parents, Eilman was released without assistance or instruction into a high-crime neighborhood while dressed in short shorts and a cut-off top.

She was subsequently lured into the last remaining high-rise at the Robert Taylor homes, where she was sexually assaulted before falling from a seventh-floor window.

Eilman suffered a devastating brain injury and several broken bones, including a shattered pelvis. She now requires around-the-clock care and lives with her parents in California.

Fresh off our discussion of public-sector unions, here's a debacle that's costing Chicago taxpayers $22.5 million, but, judging from the description in the closing paragraph, all of the guilty parties are apparently still employed by the city of Chicago

What on earth does this terrible event have to do with public sector unions?

Agree with 1369 on new Jim Crow; I'd say we've gone a long way to addressing cultural racism, but not so much economic. In some ways the victories of the Civil Rights Movement obscure the ongoing disparity in resources and opportunities.

What on earth does this terrible event have to do with public sector unions?

Did you miss the part where the guilty parties are apparently still employed?

***

In some ways the victories of the Civil Rights Movement obscure the ongoing disparity in resources and opportunities.

Affirmative action has already reached absurd levels, to the point that even liberal areas have pushed back, while welfare spending is crushing budgets from coast to coast. After two or three generations of affirmative action and a massive welfare state, I don't see how government can do much more with regard to any "disparity in resources and opportunities." The breakdown of the family and the illegitimacy rate have far more to do with the "disparity in resources and opportunities" than racism.

I wonder how many of BBTF's many white-guilters, such as Treder and BrianBrianson, routinely decline job promotions or business opportunities, or send their kids to lower-tier schools, in order to help reduce the "disparity of resources and opportunity" among members of America's (allegedly) oppressed class(es). I'm guessing the number is zero.

I wonder how many of BBTF's many white-guilters, such as Treder and BrianBrianson, routinely decline job promotions or business opportunities, or send their kids to lower-tier schools, in order to help reduce the "disparity of resources and opportunity" among members of America's (allegedly) oppressed class(es). I'm guessing the number is zero.

It's a good thing that we don't live in Libertopia where such individual actions are the only way of effecting change. Instead we've got a government, which can (theoretically, if properly managed) do stuff to address the disparity like provide an education system that doesn't include lower tiers, while liberals just pay some tax and then go on looking out for themselves and their families in their own lives. It's pretty nifty!

It's a good thing that we don't live in Libertopia where such individual actions are the only way of effecting change. Instead we've got a government, which can (theoretically, if properly managed) do stuff to address the disparity

Ha ha. Just like with the big healthcare problem that led to Obamacare, the lefties don't want to take action themselves. They want the heavy hand of government to force other people to take action (or have things taken from them, such as money or opportunity).

like provide an education system that doesn't include lower tiers, while liberals just pay some tax and then go on looking out for themselves and their families in their own lives. It's pretty nifty!

"An education system that doesn't include lower tiers"? In which century is this going to be rolled out?

In case you hadn't noticed, we have lefties right here on BBTF who fight tooth and nail to maintain the current (government-run) educational system, which is replete with "lower tiers."

I wonder how many of BBTF's many white-guilters, such as Treder and BrianBrianson, routinely decline job promotions or business opportunities, or send their kids to lower-tier schools, in order to help reduce the "disparity of resources and opportunity" among members of America's (allegedly) oppressed class(es). I'm guessing the number is zero.

Ha ha. Just like with Obamacare, the lefties don't want to take action themselves. They want the heavy hand of government to force other people to take action (or have things taken from them, such as money or opportunity).

I'm not really sure what the threshold is here. I would turn down a job at a company that I knew to be racist, I think. I would work to effect change at any bigoted organization. I don't have any kids, but I'd send my kids to public school. I do live in a historically black neighborhood (not that it's bad or anything). I have advocated at my current job for more childcare leave for colleagues, although I don't have kids.

I think that a lot of problems are impossible to solve by individual action. Things like inequality and racism are among them.

I realize that Joe is just posting bs again, but I really do feel like the conversation is better if people try to provide thoughtful answers rather than just trying to score points.

Wait. Someone is arguing that people who are near-patient zero for a massive pandemic shouldn't be quarantined, because, Freedom Rock, man?

You are operating under the assumption that the quarantine is necessary, appropriate, and carried out in a reasonable and just manner. Are you so confident that the government would exercise proper restraint in a high-stress situation like a pandemic?

I'm not really sure what the threshold is here. I would turn down a job at a company that I knew to be racist, I think. I would work to effect change at any bigoted organization.

That's not the threshold at all. Turning down a job at a company that is known to be racist wouldn't create an opportunity for a member of the oppressed class.

I realize that Joe is just posting bs again, but I really do feel like the conversation is better if people try to provide thoughtful answers rather than just trying to score points.

It's not "B.S." at all. In the last day, we've had BrianBrianson claiming that white guys can commit just about any crime they want without being prosecuted, and then #1375 and #1377 lamenting the "disparity of resources and opportunity" that they apparently believe is due to racism rather than other factors. I'd just like to know if these guys are putting their money and their careers and their kids' education where their mouths are, or if it's only other white people who are undeservedly hogging resources and opportunities.

What on earth does this terrible event have to do with public sector unions?

Did you miss the part where the guilty parties are apparently still employed?

Guilty of what exactly?

Obviously what happened to the woman is terrible, but I don't see how anybody other than the guys who sexually assaulted her are guilty of anything.
Obviously the story is pretty short on details, but it seems to me that based on the actions of the woman, they had cause for an arrest. Similarly, I think based on medical information which would not have been available to the arresting officers, not pressing charges is justifiable. In which case they have to cut her lose the next day.

The only thing I can see here that any public sector union member did wrong is cost taxpayers money. Which in Joe-Land of course is the most heinous of crimes.

Obviously what happened to the woman is terrible, but I don't see how anybody other than the guys who sexually assaulted her are guilty of anything.
Obviously the story is pretty short on details, but it seems to me that based on the actions of the woman, they had cause for an arrest. Similarly, I think based on medical information which would not have been available to the arresting officers, not pressing charges is justifiable. In which case they have to cut her lose the next day.

The only thing I can see here that any public sector union member did wrong is cost taxpayers money. Which in Joe-Land of course is the most heinous of crimes.

You read the story and this is your conclusion? I guess you missed the parts where (1) the police ignored the "frantic" calls from the woman's parents, (2) a bunch of police testified that other police screwed up, and (3) a federal judge issued a scathing report of police ineptitude and recklessness.

(Anyway, I love the part where "the only thing" that "any public-sector union member did wrong is cost taxpayers money." That's generally the point of these discussions about public-sector unions — a lot of money is spent/wasted with little or no accountability.)

Joe, do you not realize that one group could lack resources and opportunities without another group "unfairly hogging" them? People do what they need to do. What's important is what they can do. I would argue that the problem is now an almost entirely economic one, partly directly caused by the aftermath of an unfortunate past, and partly caused by social and cultural issues that stem from the same aftermath as well as from the past economic privations endured by the group in question. I don't deny that plenty of individual Americans are racists, but there has been enough structural pushback that I truly don't think their individual racism can have any more than local effect any longer. I hate to say it, but that's probably the best that will ever be accomplished. There will always be racism, because people have a genetic tendency toward tribalism. Those of us who manage to avoid some instantiations of that tendency fail to avoid others--if they're not racists, they're jingoistic patriots or wacko environmentalists or fundamentalist Christians or something. Obviously we should all try our best to avoid being jerks to other human beings. We won't always succeed, but we'll succeed a hell of a lot more if we keep trying.

Wow--so something like half the world's population dies,... or are you confining it to a certain area (which would bring about conflicts an Earthwide disaster wouldn't).

I'm also thinking of the scenario where a bomb of sufficient size to kill 20,000 people and devastate a large section of a city. Probably nuclear. Then, the effects on the country. As horrifying as the blast will be, and as devastating the loss of life, another result will be a permanent change in the US. Closed borders, armed guards everywhere, hundreds of billions more spent on internal security, hundreds of billions on top of that spent on armed raids towards the extinction of whatever group was responsible; an end to privacy and an end to civil liberties... all of this and more with almost complete approval from the populace. It'll make the worst of the Patriot Act look utterly benign.

But also think of the social and economic ramifications of mass death. Perhaps increased social mobility, labour shortages could give the working classes leverage. Of course, there's also likely to be significant social unrest and revolts, attacks on ethnic, or religions minorities. Maybe more, or less, faith in government. And who knows what effect on art, popular culture, television, movies, music, spirituality...

I wonder how many of BBTF's many white-guilters, such as Treder and BrianBrianson, routinely decline job promotions or business opportunities, or send their kids to lower-tier schools, in order to help reduce the "disparity of resources and opportunity" among members of America's (allegedly) oppressed class(es). I'm guessing the number is zero.

When did I ever say I felt guilty? I don't want to live in a world where I get sent to prison for seven years because cops find me smoking a joint in the park; I want to live in a world where they also ask black guys for a toke and then move on.

I work in the Renewable Energy Industry nowadays, my general take is that a new city over a very well established existing one in the Developed world don't make much sense at the moment, your right that there hasn't been enough of a game changer to really warrant that sort of extreme measure, as for Brasilia, I think that worked out alright, at least for a city which wasn't exactly built with economic development in mind. (otherwise they would have choose a coastal area .)

I think at least that water reclamation building technique is very feasible and generally cost effective if we're building something from scratch, though adding one to existing building is much tougher, especially in a city. heat pumps are also a fairly good choice though both would generally require some digging, especially the later.

When did I ever say I felt guilty? I don't want to live in a world where I get sent to prison for seven years because cops find me smoking a joint in the park;

In which U.S. jurisdictions is this happening?

***

Joe, do you not realize that one group could lack resources and opportunities without another group "unfairly hogging" them?

Absolutely. The comments to which I replied seemed to be implying that government should be weighing in more heavily with regards to the "disparity of resources and opportunity." But unless one believes one group of people is unfairly hogging resources or opportunity at the expense of another, the government has no business being involved at all.

I work in the Renewable Energy Industry nowadays, my general take is that a new city over a very well established existing one in the Developed world don't make much sense at the moment, your right that there hasn't been enough of a game changer to really warrant that sort of extreme measure

Why are we rebuilding cities? To make them more efficient and modern? There's no efficiency discovery in thousands of years that would make the location of the world's great cities not be the most important thing to their successes.

Did you miss the part where the guilty parties are apparently still employed?

Because only in public sector unions are mistakes made. Only in public sector unions is there no accountability. The entire fiasco was all about rules and procedures insisted on bythe public sector unions.

Except of course all of that is wrong. The story has zero to do with unions (public sector or otherwise), it is just a chance for you to smear them with something bad that happened. I could go through news and find dozens of corporation does horrible thing, costs millions and in each you would suggest it was not the mere existence of corporations that caused the issue, but because there are unions involved to a slight extent and unions are evil therefor it is the unions fault.

Now that the election is over mainlining GOP talking points is much less informative.

Why are we rebuilding cities? To make them more efficient and modern? There's no efficiency discovery in thousands of years that would make the location of the world's great cities not be the most important thing to their successes.

This is an oddly "nothing ever changes, ever, and humanity has reached its peak of knowledge and development" position to be taking.

This is an oddly "nothing ever changes, ever, and humanity has reached its peak of knowledge and development" position to be taking.

Well, no. It's simply an acknowledgement that place and history matter in human settlement and civilization. Do you really think you could just close down Paris and rebuild it more efficiently 200 miles up the river?

I think the real question is what one is trying to achieve. If you want a unified hyper energy (and everything else) efficient archology (with under ground mass transit for McCoy) then yes building from scratch is clearly the way to go. If you want the most bang for your buck then clearly leveraging existing cities makes more sense.

As for history, well yes cities grew up where they are for reasons, but things change and some of those reasons are no longer relevent or were silly or wrong to begin with.